let me continue with what happened that day. in that 15 seconds -- actually, in the first shot, one man ran out of walgreen's, a man with a gun, with the intent to do the right thing, an armed citizen. he admits he came within about a half second of shooting the man who tackled jared loughner, nearly killing him. we almost had this horrific mass murder followed up by an horrific accident. the horrific mass murder because of the high-capacity magazine and the horrific accident because of the armed person there who, with good intentions, wanted to end the something that was going really bad. >> senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i think i am speaking for a lot of people when we say we are heartbroken when a family member is taken through an act of gun violence, whether it be a child or anyone else, but particularly children. that is a heartbreaking episode in society. i think most people would appreciate the fact that there are thousands, if not millions of americans, that save their families from home invasions or violent assault because they had a gun to protect themselves. most of us are glad it ended well for you. those are the two bookends. you mentioned, captain kelly, and i appreciate you being here, appreciate your comments about you and your wife being reasonable people. i do not doubt that one bit. the question is, am i an unreasonable american if i oppose this bill? am i an unreasonable american to believe the constitution says guns commonly used by the

population for legitimate purposes? i do not want to own a gun to attack my government. that is not what i think a legitimate purpose is. let's talk about a real world incident that happened in loganville, georgia in january 2012. one bullet in the hands of a mentally ill person or a convicted felon is one too many. six bullets in the hands of a mother protecting her twin 9 year-olds may not be enough. so i have a chart here. at the top is the 38 revolver. on the right is a 9 millimeter pistol. that holds 15 rounds. does everyone on the panel agree that a convicted felon should not have either one of

those guns? does everybody agree that a mentally unstable person should not have either one of those pistols? ok, common ground there. put yourself in the shoes of the mother. a guy broke into the home, she ran upstairs, hid in the closet, she got on the phone with police, and she was talking with her husband in real time. the intruder broke into the home, had a crowbar, and found them in a closet. they were confronted face-to- face. according to reports, her husband said shoot. she emptied the gun, six shot revolver. the guy was hit five of the six times. he was able to still get up and drive away. my question is, put your family members in that situation. would i be a reasonable american to what my family to have the 15-round magazine and a

semi-automatic weapon to make sure, if there are two intruders, she does not run out of bullets? and i am on reasonable person for saying in that situation the 15-round magazine makes sense? well, i will say that i do not believe i am. i will give you an example of where a 15-round magazine could make the difference between protecting a family if there is more than one attacker. back to your point, capt. kelly, and the situation you described, i do not want that person to have one goal of oregon. the point of regulating magazines is to interrupt the shooter. i guess what i am saying is we live in a role where there are 4 million high-capacity magazines out there or more. the best way to interrupt the shooter, if they come to a

school house, is not to deny the moment an atlanta and the ability to have more than 10 rounds, but to have somebody like you, chief johnson, meet them when they come to the door. that is the best way to do it. my good friend joe biden, who i have spirited conversations about a lot of things, was talking to somebody in california who mentioned the fact, what if there is an earthquake out here and there is a lawless situation? in 1992, you had the riots in los angeles. you could find yourself in a lawless environment in this country. the story was about a place called koreatown. there are marauding gangs going through the area burning stores, looting and robbing. the vice-president said in response to me, he said, no, you would be better off with a

12 gauge shotgun. that is his opinion, and i respect it. i have an ar-15 at home and i have not hurt anybody and i do not intend to, but i would be better off protecting my family if there was law-and-order breakdown in my neighborhood. i do not think that makes me an unreasonable person. mr. trotter when you say you speak on behalf of millions of women out there who believe an ar-15 makes them safer, there were a lot of giggles in the room, and that explains the dilemma. the people who were giggling were saying to you, that is crazy. nobody i know thinks that way. which reminds me of the harvard professor who said i cannot believe mcgovern lost. everyone i knew voted for him. i bet there are people on our side that cannot believe obama won because everyone they know

voted against him. the point is, we have different perspectives on this. the reason i will oppose the legislation, chief johnston, is because i respect what you do as a law-enforcement officer. has your budget been cut? >> yes. >> will it be cut in the future? >> i am optimistic that it is not. >> because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, there will be less police officers, not more, over the next decade. response time will be more, not less. so, mr. kelly, i really do want to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people. i honest to god believe that if we arbitrarily say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in the future, there could be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets

because of something we do here. i cannot prevent every bad outcome, but i do know and believe in the bottom of my heart that i am not an unreasonable person by saying that in some circumstances the 15-round makes sense and in other situations the ar-15 makes sense. this is why we have these hearings. i really do appreciate the fact that we have these hearings. professor kopel, some people on our side say that it is unconstitutional to put a limit on magazine size. do you agree with that?

>> i think if we follow senator schumer's approach and follow the supreme court decision, what that tells you is the core of the second amendment is the firearms and accessories that are commonly owned by law- abiding people for legitimate purposes. >> is it constitutional to say 10 vs 15? >> 10 is plainly unconstitutional. magazines of up to 19 are common on semiautomatic handguns. >> i do not know if 10 vs 19 is common or uncommon. i do know that 10 versus 19 in the hands of the wrong person is a complete disaster. i do know that six bullets in that hands of a woman trying to defend her children may not be enough. so i do not look at it from some academic debate. let's agree on one thing.

one bullet in the hands of the wrong person we should all try to prevent. but when you start trying to tell me that i am unreasonable for wanting that woman to have more than six bullets or to have an ar-15 for people running around my neighborhood, i reject the concept. >> thank you, senator. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have heard testimony in this hearing that the federal gun crime prosecutions number, 62 a year, and that "we do not prosecute any." i was surprised to hear that testimony because i was a united states attorney. in my time, it became a priority to prosecute fire arms. i went to every police department in my state to talk about what we could do with gun criminals.

we set up a special procedure where the attorney general's office, which has criminal jurisdiction in rhode island, view the gun crimes together to make sure they were sent to the place where they could get the most effective treatment. i believe that continues, although i am no longer a u.s. attorney. i pulled up some quick statistics. according to the executive office of united states attorneys, in 2012, more than 11,700 defendants were charged with federal gun crimes, which is a lot more than not doing it, a lot more than 62. the numbers are up at the department of justice since 2001, by more than 3000 prosecutions. we may have a debate about whether more should be done and who at the witness table actually wants more to be done in the way of gun prosecutions,

but to pretend the number is in double digits or zero is flagrantly wrong and inconsistent with the type of testimony that senators should rely on in a situation like this. i should also mention, repeated testimony from senator durbin that criminals will not subject themselves to a background check. that is that the point. criminals do not subject themselves to a background check, so they do not go into the gun shops. if they do, they are prevented from buying a gun. instead, they go primarily to the main way we distribute guns without a background check, which is to the gun shows. to the extent we can expand the background check, the fact that criminals will not subject themselves to a background

check provides the kind of prevention that senator graham was talking about, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the very first case. chief johnson, tell me a little bit about the men and women with whom you serve in law enforcement and the type of training and screening that is important in both gun use, gun safety, and situational awareness, before they are put in a position where there are expected to defend the public with firearms. do you just give somebody a gun and say, get in there and defend the community?

how rigorous, how cautious are you about training required? >> the process starts well before we even offer you a badge. it is a very robust, in depth, psychological review of whether or not we will allow you to enter the force itself. all departments are universal on this issue. it includes psychological, polygraph, and other means to determine whether or not you have the fiber to have the awesome responsibility to carry a gun. the training is exhaustive. weeks and weeks of training for how to use the weapon, tactically how to deal with it, how to care for it, how to safeguard that weapon. but it does not stop there. once you're in the field, robust psychological services section, yearly training.

this talk about teachers having guns -- >> before we go to teachers, to your knowledge, does the military have similar types of concerns and programs with respect to our men and women who serve in our armed forces? >> talking with my associates in the military, it is my understanding that public policing mirrors much of what the military does. >> against that background, how much sense does it make to have our armed line of defense be teachers? >> does the teacher have the nerve fiber to carry that weapon, and the responsibility? you are an educator. you dedicated your life to that pursuit, but you have a side arm strapped to yourself? and you better have it at all times because if you put it in your desk drawer, your purse, briefcase -- let me tell you something, carrying this weapon

by my side has been a pain all my years. i am glad i have it if i need it, but it is an awesome responsibility. what do you do in the summertime when you dress down? how will you safeguard the weapon from a classroom of 16- year-old boys who want to touch it? certainly -- holsters. i am spending $200 apiece for these. these are all factors. we all face catastrophic changes in our lives as we go through divorce, other things that bring us down. but you need people to step in, like we have been policing, to notice those things and deal with them. this is a major issue. >> we have had cases in which trained police officers who were off-duty responded to a situation. because they had not been adequately trained in how to respond off-duty, because there were out of uniform, that lead

to tragic blue on blue events. presumably, that would have a bearing on officers, a situation where teachers were trying to defend their school. >> two years ago in baltimore city, an on-duty officer in plainclothes was shot by uniformed on duty personnel, and they were on the same shift. it was just in the darkness of the night. as captain kelly has pointed out, that was a major issue in the tucson shooting. >> sarah mckinley, in defending her home, used a remington 12 gauge shotgun that would not be banned under the statute, correct? >> i do not remember what type of weapon she used. >> that is what kind of weapon it was and it would not be banned under the statute. it proves the point that ordinary firearms, not 100

magazines, peculiar types of artifacts -- people are quite capable of defending themselves. >> i respectfully disagree. i understand you are also a graduate from the university of virginia school of law and you were close to monticello where thomas jefferson and our declaration of independence and close by montpelier where james madison was instrumental in drafting the bill of rights. i think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our second amendment right to choose to defend ourselves. i do not know what weapon she used -- >> my point is, the example you used is one that would not dare an argument against the proposal that is before us, because that remington express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed.

>> would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child? >> i think if she was using a 100 -- let me put it another way. she would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece. >> how can you say that? you are a large man. you are -- tall. you are not a young mother who has a young child with her. i am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 911, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight. >> my point is that she did it adequately and safely with lawful firearms and without the firepower that was brought to

bear so that the 14th shot could be fired by a man -- >> we will have to come back to this. there are a number of things that i could say but i will go to senator lee. >> i want to thank each of the members of the panel for enduring two hours of this hearing. as a more junior member of the committee who sometimes gets to ask questions last, i am appreciative of your willingness to stay this long. i think every one of us in this room and watching on television has been horrified by the incidents that occurred in newtown, tucson, and elsewhere.

i do not think there is one of us that would not like us to find a way, as a society, to put an end to events like this. it would be my preference if we could find a way to put an end to events like this without doing violence to the constitution and also without leaving law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to crime. there are a number of statistics on this. one statistic i read indicated about 2.5 million times a year in america a gun is used to protect its possessor from a crime. that is quite significant, a fact we need to take into account. there has been a lot of reference today to the fact that the protections of the constitution, protection of the second amendment right to bear arms, are not unlimited. i agree there are limits. it is important for us to focus on what those limits are. the supreme court, in district

of columbia versus heller, held that the guns that are within the zone of protection of the second amendment are those that are typically possessed by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes. let's start with you, professor kopel. can you tell me, is a semi- automatic weapon, whether a rifle or handgun, that holds more than 10 rounds in its ammunition magazine, one that could be fairly characterized as one typically possessed by law-abiding citizen for lawful purposes? >> in handguns, some automatics, 81% of handguns sold. a very large percentage of those have as standard -- not high capacity -- magazines between 11 magazine 19 rounds. another thing that is common, to get back to the issue about the remington shotgun, senator

feinstein's bill would outlaw that shotgun if it has a seven- round magazine on it. it comes with a five-round magazine. you can extend it. the bill would outlaw that standard home defense shotgun, if it had a seven-round magazine. it is all fine to talk about novelty items on the fringe, like 100-round drums, but at practice, what does the threat of being a law, when people are using standard capacity handgun magazines and standard capacities for rifles and shotguns. >> what are the law-abiding citizens doing with these? what are the lawful purposes to which law-abiding citizens are using these guns? >> self-defense, target shooting, all of which are purposes lawful for having a firearm. and in regards to the extra training the police officers have. i represented the two police

training organizations in the supreme court and i would certainly agree that the police have more training for all kinds of reasons, including having the power to effectuate arrests, which ordinary citizens do not. in the view of the training organizations, they believe the training that is required in most states to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for lawful protection of self. only nine states currently violate that by not letting trained citizens carry. that is appropriate for you, to defend themselves. not necessarily do arrests, but defend themselves. that includes defending themselves in their place of employment, even if it happens to be a school. >> one of the arguments i have heard for making this type of

weapon illegal, using a weapon with more than 10 rounds, weapons like these are available on a widespread basis. it is relatively easy to buy them, in the sense that most people may lawfully buy them and own them. and that is used as an argument in favor of restricting access to these weapons. in your opinion, does that make it more or less constitutionally permissible to restrict their sales? >> you have hit on what district of columbia versus heller was all about. how often are 100-round draw magazines used in crimes? pretty rarely. self-defense? pretty rarely, too. 70% of gun homicides are from handguns. the supreme court said that the fact these are frequently used in crimes does not mean that

under the constitution you can prohibit them. the fact and you can point to any particular crime where a gun was misused, that approval to ban this gun or the accessories, that is the opposite of what the supreme court is saying. you do not look only at the misuse of an arm or accessory, you look at its lawful use. does it have common, lawful use. yes, handguns have common, lawful use. handgun magazines have common, lawful use. yes, the ar-15 rifle, the best selling rifle in this country for years, has pervasive lawful use. >> if we restrict access to these guns, we are limiting the ability of individual americans, law-abiding americans, to use them for lawful purposes? >> criminals may misuse something, but that does not constitute sufficient reason to

prevent law-abiding citizens from using a commonly used firearm. >> ms. trotter, do most of the gun-owning women that you know have an inclination to abide by the law in connection with a gun ownership? >> definitely. >> if we were to ban all weapons that contained an ammunition magazine capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, would most female gun owners abide by that law? >> of course. >> what about criminals, those who use weapons like these in connection with crimes? are they as likely to abide by that law? >> by definition, criminals do not abide by the law. >> women you know, that you represent, described, what kind of position does this put them in relative to their current position, as their ability to defend themselves? >> it disarms the women, puts them at a severe disadvantage

and not only affects them, but anybody they are responsible for, their children, elderly relatives, incapacitated family members. >> i see my time has expired. i have one question for mr. johnson. mr. johnson, according to fbi statistics, about 72% of the gun homicides committed each year in america are committed with handguns. 4% with rifles, 4% with shotguns, 1% with other firearms, and 18% unknown. 72% classified as handguns. if 72% of gun homicides are being committed with handguns, would that suggest that you prefer banning handguns as well? >> there are no discussions of banning handguns or restricting

handguns from women or any other group. i do not want to give up my hand guns. we are here today to talk about a universal background check that would help make our nation safer and limit high-capacity magazines. they are used in crimes and violence across america. >> even though far more people die each year from handgun- inflicted injury than assault weapon-inflicted injuries. >> we believe the limit on high-capacity magazines, even in handguns, is necessary. no more than 10. >> thank you. first i want to acknowledge of the family members out here who have lost loved ones in shootings. i especially want to acknowledge you, maya, who lost her father. i was also listening to all of

the statistics here which was important. i am a former prosecutor, i believe in evidence. the statistic i will never forget is the one from newtown, conn. shared with me by a relative of one of the young victims. charlotte bacon loved her girls got troop. her girl scout troop once had 10 girls and now there are only five left. we have to remember what this is all about as we look at solutions. as a former prosecutor, i have always believed in enforcing the laws on the books. mr. lapierre, i made it a major focus of our office to prosecute the possession of guns. it is clearly part of the solution. you can not lessen the importance of that as we go forward. there are other things as well, including the recommendations that have been made by vice

president biden and the task force. it is very important that we explore those in addition to enforcing the laws on the books. i have heard from republican sheriffs from all over the state that there are major issues with background checks. i would turn to that first, chief johnson. we had a guy in minnesota that just came out in the papers. he killed his parents, he got out, somehow got a permit, was able to obtain guns. when they found him, he had 13 guns in his house, and he had a note that he had written to the gunman in newtown and said, i think about killing all the time. he was able to get a permit and get those guns. this just came out in our local paper. what do you see as some of the

biggest loopholes? we talk about gun shows, internet, private sales, and how you think that could help? and then how do you think you can get background checks done quickly? i am from a hunting estate. the last thing i want to do is hurt my uncle and his hunting. >> there has been great >> david keene said thursday the nra will withhold pac run checks on gun sales until there is actual legislation put forward by congress. he also said it is possible the courts will over some restrictions on large capacity magazines legal. here is a portion of the event hosted by the christian science monitor. >> they talk about how 40 percent of fire arms sales are private sales that do not undergo background checks. that number is based on a

telephone survey that was done in 1994. even that number shows that up roughly half of those people or immediate family. in other words, most people in this country get their firearms from their father, grandfather, inheritance. when you look at the numbers you find out that are slight sales between private parties represent 4% of all of it. the other are and neighbors and friends. the people selling the firearms and the people buying them knew each other. this is not where criminals got them. criminals make it their weapons from a neighbor or a friend but they are not likely to submit to a background check. the problem is in many ways, not just conceptually, it is

practical. and regardless of your position on whether e-should have -- whether you should have a background check is not hard. you can do it as a practical matter. what if you decided to buy a new shotgun? i am your next-door neighbor and i will say i will buy the 01. -- the old one. how do you get that done? michigan has universal background checks. how does this work in michigan? . if you have a law that is difficult or impossible to forks -- to enforce, all you do is encourage people not to and encourage the law. i have not seen the specific

proposals that have been made. i do not think any of us have. . i find it very difficult to imagine any way in which that kind of private tracks that -- that private transaction could be covered. we combine that with the fact that various surveys the government has done shows that that is not how criminals get their guns. what you're doing is putting a heavy burden on somebody who has never done anything wrong. we're talking about a practical problem. >> in this debate, the nra will not be supporting any additional measures related to back

projects? >> yes we will be. we have been urging for 20 years that those who have been adjudicated to be potentially violent and mentally ill should be included in the system. in fact, wayne did mention it off hand, in march of 1993 wayne lapierre was on "face the nation." he made the point that we believe very strongly that those people need to be included in the system for background checks. >> if john mccain's 2010 campaign, when he ran for president, is the most memorable campaign of any that i have covered. we will never see it again. he was facing george w. bush who

had the republican party backing him and the three republicans from new hampshire and all the money. john mccain held 114 town meetings and stayed there until every question was answered. you can see the light will go on in people's heads. john mccain said we are not going to get a patient's bill of rights. next question. it was this refreshing candor. he was totally open to the press. it was a cantor and openness, sort of a welcome this that no one had seen before and no one has seen since. longtime columnist -- >> longtime paul -- longtime columnist on his career in politics. tonight at 8:00.

she never set foot in washington. her husband, benjamin harrison tie -- benjamin harrison, died after his first month in office. in c-span's original series, "first lady." produced with the white house historical association, sees and one begins on president's day, february 18, at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org >> secretary of state hillary clinton's last day in office was on friday. she talks about america's leadership in the world and the need for diplomacy to change the world. she took a few questions from the audience on immigration reform, budget concerns, and the future of the american political system. this is an hour.

[applause] >> please, take your seats. good afternoon, and on behalf of bob reuben, carla hills, who is with us today, the entire board of directors and our members, i want to welcome you to the council on foreign relations and i'm richard haass, president of the c.f.r. we're an independent nonpartisan membership organization, a think tank and a publisher and we are dedicated to improving the understanding of the world and the foreign policy choices facing this country. and today we are continuing

what we've come to call secretary of state week here at the council. on tuesday night, we were fortunate to hear from george shultz who served as secretary of state for some 6 1/2 years under president ronald reagan and this afternoon we are honored to host hillary rodham clinton. during her last 24 hours as president obama's first secretary of state. immediately after, which i'm told, she might be expected to party like it's cartagena all over again. [laughter] we did our research and this is the eighth time that hillary clinton has spoken that the council and her third appearance in her current incarnation as secretary of state. this afternoon's speech is probably the most anticipated one she's given here, indeed, it may be the most anticipated farewell address since 1796. i suspect, though, that her views entangling alliances

might be different than george washington. much has been made of the miles she's put in as the country's 67th secretary of state. you've seen the statistics. she's visited some 112 countries, logged nearly a million mile miles of travel, 87 days of flight time, but more important what you've put into these miles and your tenure's coincided with some of the most consequential events and decisions of this young century, rebalancing american foreign policy toward asia, wingsd down the war in iraq and war in afghanistan, contending with the difficult transitions in the arab world and building a multilateral coalition for sanctions against iraq, dealing with social issues, bringing them to the seventh floor of the building you oversee and you've done all this and more against the backdrop of

historic economic downturn that limited every country's room to maneuver so i speak for everyone here when i say thank you for your dedicated services to this country. [applause] the way we're going to proceed is secretary clinton will deliver a speech after which we'll have time, given her schedule, for just a few questions. madam secretary, the floor is yours. >> thank you, richard, for that introduction and for everything you've continue to lead this very valuable institution. i also want to thank the board of the council on foreign relations and all my friends and colleagues and other interested citizens who are here today because you respect the council, you understand the important work it does and you are committed to ensuring that

we chart a path to the future, that's in the best interests not only of the united states, but of the world. as richard said, tomorrow is my last day as secretary of state and though it is hard to predict what any day in this job will bring, i know that tomorrow my heart will be very full. serving with the men and women of the state department and usaid has been a singular honor and secretary kerry will find there is no more extraordinary group of people working anywhere in the world so these last days have been bittersweet for me. but this opportunity that i have here before you gives me some time to reflect on the distance that we've traveled and to take stock of what we've done and what is left to do. i think it's important, as

richard alluded in his opening comments, what we faced in january 2009 -- two wars, an economy in freefall, traditional alliances fraying, our diplomatic standing damaged and around the world people questioning america's commitment to core values and our ability to maintain our global leadership. that was my in box on day one as your secretary of state. today, the world remains a dangerous and complicated place and of course we still face many difficult challenges but a lot has changed in the last four years. under president obama's leadership, we've ended the war in iraq, begun a transition in afghanistan and brought osama bin laden to justice. we've also revitalized american diplomacy and strengthened our alliances and while our economic recovery is not yet complete, we are heading in the

right direction. in short, america today is stronger at home and more respected in the world. and our global leadership is on firmer footing than many predicted. to understand what we have been trying to do the last four years, it's helpful to start with some history. last year, i was honored to deliver the lecture at the forrestal naval acadamy named for our first secretary of defense after world war ii. in 1946, james forrestal noted in his diary that the soviets believed in the post-war world should be shaped by a handful of major power acting alone, but, he went on, the american point of view is that all nations professing a desire for peace and democracy should participate. and what ended up happening in the years since is something in

between. the united states and our allies succeeded in constructing a broad international architecture of institutions and alliances -- chiefly the u.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato -- that benefited peoples and nations around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks.

at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this mean for america? and then we go on to say, how can we advance our own interests and also uphold a just, rules-based international order, a system that does provide clear rules of the road for everything from intellectual property rights to freedom of navigation to fair labor standards. simply put, we have to be smart about how we use our power, not

because we have less of it. indeed, the might of our military, the size of our economy, the influence of our diplomacy and the creative energy of our people remain unrivaled. no, it's because, as the world has changed, so, too, have the levers of power that can most effectively shape international affairs. i've come to think of it like this. truman and atchison were building the parthenon with classical geometry and clear lines. the pillars were a handful of big institutions and alliances dominated by major powers and that structure delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity but time takes its toll even on the greatest edifice. and we do need a new architecture for this new world. more frank geary than formal greek.

think of it, some of his work at first might appear haphazard but in fact it's highly intentional and sophisticated. where once a few strong columns could hold up the weight of the world, today, we need a dynamic mix of materials and structures. now, of course, american military and economic strength will remain the foundation of our global leadership. as we saw from the intervention to stop a massacre in libya, to the raid that brought bin laden to justice, there will always be times when it is necessary and just to use force. america's ability to project power all over the globe remains essential and i'm very proud of the partnerships that the state department has formed with the pentagon, first with bob gates and mike mullah, then with leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token, america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain

invaluable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years and i would be quick to add, the u.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships, that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needle -- needle of a variable landscape, like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon, or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we're also working more than

ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union and somalia and the arab league in libya, even subregional groups like the lower macon initiative that we created to reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on issues like whether dams should or should not be built. we're also, of course, thinking about old-fashioned shoe leather diplomacy in a new way. i have found it highly ironic that in today's world when we can be anywhere virtually, more than ever, people want to actually show up. but while a secretary of state, in an earlier era, might have been able to focus on a small number of influential capitals, shuttling between the major powers, today, we, by necessity, must take a broader view. and people say to me all the time, i look at your travel schedule, why togo?

well, no secretary of state had ever been to togo, but togo happens to hold a rotating seat on the u.n. security council. going there, making the personal investment, has a strategic purpose, and it's not just where we engage, but with whom. you can't build a set of durable partnerships in the 21st century with governments alone. the opinions of people now matter as to how their governments work with us, whether it's democratic or authoritarian so in virtually every country i've visited, i've held town halls and reached out to citizens, women's groups, business groups and so many others. they have valuable insights and contributions to make and increasingly they are driving economic and political change, especially in democracies. the state department now has twitter feeds in 11 languages

and just this tuesday i participated in a global town hall and took questions from people on every continent including, for the first time, antarctica. the point is, we have to be strategic about all the levers of global power and look for the new levers that could not have been possible or had not even been invented a decade ago. we need to widen the aperture of our engagement and let me offer a few examples of how we're doing this. first, technology. you can't be a 21st century leader without 21st century tools. not when people organize pro democracy protests with twitter and while terrorists spread their hateful ideology online. that's why i have championed what we call 21st century state craft. we've launched an interagency center for strategic counterterrorism communications at state. expert, tech-savvy specialists

from across our government fluent in irdu and other languages, use social media to expose terrorism. we're leading the efforts to defend internet freedom so it remains a free, open and reliable platform for everyone. we're helping human rights activists get online and communicate more safely because the country that built the internet ought to be leading the fight to protect it from those who would censor it or use it as a tool of control. second, our nonproliferation agenda. negotiating the new start treaty with russia was an example of traditional diplomacy at its best. then working it through the congress was an example of traditional bipartisan support at its best, but we also have